Need to dart over to Niners HQ for draft-related events, so this will be reasonably brief (as Pac-12 TV updates go) …

*** The asking price

Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott asked Fox for approximately $300 million annually for the league’s broadcasting rights during the just-completed exclusive negotiating window, according to sources.

(Fox turned him down, of course, which is why the league is now on the open market).

It’s a monumental, colossal figure, far beyond what the Big Ten and the SEC receive, and not all that surprising given:

1) Scott’s aggressive nature 2) the fact that the Pac-12 had nothing to lose by asking 3) the sizzling market for college sports rights and 4) the unprecedented amount of programming the conference is offering.

But there is much we don’t know about the asking price, specifically:

* Was that $300 million solely for the broadcast rights?

* Did it include help offsetting the exorbitant ($100+ million) start-up costs for a Pac-12 Network?

* What kind of equity stake was Fox going to receive in the Pac-12 Network in return for $300 million annually?

Or … and this makes the most sense to me …

Was $300 million annually what it would cost Fox forthe Pac-12 to not start its own network.

In other words, did Scott say: We’ll scrap the network plans and give you all our programming, but you have to pay us for it — pay us $300 million.

(This is essentially what happened with the SEC, which was all set to start a network until CBS and ESPN paid it not to.)

That’s my guess as to the story behind the asking price: $300 million for NO network, with both sides knowing that Fox would balk.

Which makes me think … On the open market, with a Pac-12 Network as part of the package, Scott’s aiming for $225 – $250 million annually.

*** The expansion impact

Have to say, in all my conversations with industry analysts and sources familiar with the negotiations, I have not once heard anyone say: Utah and Colorado have helped raise the price.

Not once.

That doesn’t mean the newcomers aren’t/won’t have a positive impact — and we may never know the truth — but the market for live sports would be sizzling whether it was the Pac-10 or Pac-12.

The question remains … and I think it’s an important question … :

Will Utah and Colorado increase the league’s revenue TV revenue enough to make a 1/12th split of the pot greater than a 1/10th split of the pot.

In other words: If the conference could get $200 million annually with 10 teams (for example), will it get $240.1 million with 12 teams.

Are Utah and Colorado, and the inventory/programming/cable households they bring, worth an extra $40.1 million?

Many industry analysts I’ve talked to are highly skeptical about the value-added that Colorado and Utah bring to the table. They believe the per-school split would have been greater without expansion.

But I know what the commish would say …

*** The timeline

I’ve been asked many times over the past week or two about the timeline.

With Fox and the Big 12 finalizing their deal, and with Comcast/Versus and the NHL wrapping things up, when will the Pac-12 sign and seal its new deal?

It must to be finished by July because the conference needs a year to get the Pac-12 Network up and running for launch in late July/early August of 2012.

But I don’t think it will take that long.

There’s no way to know for sure — I doubt Scott knows for sure — because 1) we don’t know how many networks are going to make serious offers and 2) at any point, Comcast/Fox/ESPN/Turner could come with a blow-’em-away offer.

But my guess is that we’re looking at mid-June at the latest, with the distinct possibility that it will be wrapped up by mid/late May.

(Actually, my best guess is that it will happen between May 26 – June 3, because that’s when I’ll be on vacation on the east coast.)

*** The Comcast/NHL deal

I wrote Monday that the reported 10-year, $200 million annual deal “isn’t bad news for the Pac-12, but it’s not good news, either” — the thinking being that if Comcast had lost the rights to the NHL, it would have been desperate to land the Pac-12.

But you could argue that the deal was good for the Pac-12 because it shows how serious Comcast is about expanding its foothold in live college sports.

Or you could argue that it’s bad for the Pac-12 because Comcast now has $2 billion less to spend on the Pac-12.

Or you could argue that it’s good for the Pac-12 because the conference wouldn’t be Comcast’s only league partner. (You never want to be on an island.)

So, there are numerous ways to interpret the Comcast-NHL deal from a Pac-12 perspective.

But this much is sure: Comcast’s desire to become a major player in the college sports broadcasting business — it’s reportedly going to re-brand Versus to have an NBC affiliation, like NBC Sports Channel — is good for everyone.

It’s good for the conferences and the media industry and the players, coaches and fans.

We need a challenger to ABC/ESPN that has both over-the-air and basic cable distribution.

Post navigation

97Ute: Take a valium, dude. You’re obsessed with Zoobs and making the rest of us look bad. Sure Zoobs can get on my nerves, but most are decent people.

hamburgerpete

@UtesRule –

LOL at yet another BYU fan being manipulative by pretending to be someone else. You guys are pathetic. I could make a post under the user name CougarsRule in an attempt to manipulate people’s perspectives, but I would never do it. It’s dishonest, petty, and pathetic; all things BYU fans have demonstrated they have no problem with a dozen times in this comment thread alone. So sad.

I’ll admit, I do enjoy the humor in a BYU fan making a post pretending to be someone he’s not in order to chastise someone for calling out BYU fans for making posts pretending to be someone they’re not. Total fail.

When you’re pretending to be a Utah fan in the future, don’t use the term “zoobs” in the same sentence you compliment BYU fans. A Utah fan that refers to BYU fans as zoobs does not think most are decent people. A Utah fan that thinks most BYU fans are decent people would not use the term zoobs. You did better than most BYU trolls, but you still had several tells in your post. Take your dishonest PR campaign somewhere else.

OS_Beaver

Good article on NBC/Comcast and the Pac-12 as ideal partners for a new era of transformative success:

@hamburgerpete – Believe what you want, dude. I’m a die hard Ute fan and former MUSS member. I used the term Zoob in speaking to a fellow Ute fan — didn’t consider (or care) whether that would make my post less believable. Fact is, I work in SLC and have several Zoob (er, BYU) friends in the office. They annoy the crap out of me during rivalry week, but most of the rest of the time we get along, and the majority are decent people. Which is all I was trying to say. When you get posters like 97Ute labeling every Zoob as “thin-skinned, pathetic, whiny, cry baby, egotistic” and “jerk offs” and “morons” and “how sh**ty it is to deal with these jokers every day” — I just think that reflects more poorly on the poster than it does the target, and just wanted to clarify that not all Ute fans think that way. But as I said, believe whatever makes you feel better about yourself.

alchemist

OS_Beaver:

Why do you persist in deluding yourself after the Pac 16? It ain’t gonna happen. Period. End of story. I’ve explained it to you with common sense and you’ve come back with nonsense. In fact, your whole basis for thinking it’s going to happen seems to involve Larry Scott and a squadron of unicorns.

Here are a couple quick numbers for you. For the Pac 16 to make financial sense for all involved then it will require a total annual payout of well over $500 million per year to the member schools, though in truth it’s probably closer to $600 million. That’s just to make it an even money proposition. To sweeten the deal enough to make it worth it to Texas surrender their favorable position in the Big 12 the number will probably be well over $600 million per year. Per year. That kind of money doesn’t exist. So it’s not going to happen. The sooner you drop the notion the happier you are going to be.